United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/057
September 1991
PB92-963215
x>EPA National
Priorities
List Sites:
UTAH
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-743A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Utah
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 We::; .''cL-cr. boulevard, 12th FIOOC
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Superfund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Utah 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 21
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 45
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 61
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and then- potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
Illlf
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens If there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND.
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
^Sitetoscription
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Irtiposra?
Flmk
hreats and Contaminants
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress i/r
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
the cleanup plan are given here.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
tion.
SITE FACTS
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
_
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing specifications and
drawings for the selected cleanup
technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
selected cleanup remedies for the
contaminated site, or part of the site,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPLSITES
The State of
Utah
The State of Utah is located in the middle Rocky Mountain region of the United States, within
EPA Region 8. Region 8 includes six northern central states extending from the mid-western
plains to the Rocky Mountains. Utah covers 84,899 square miles consisting of the high Colorado
Plateau in the southwest, the broad, flat desert-like Great Basin in the west, the Great Salt Lake
and salt flats in the northwest, as well as the Rocky Mountains and the valleys and plateaus of
the Wasatch Front. Currently ranked 35th in U.S. populations, according to the 1990 Census,
Utah experienced an 18 percent increase in population since 1980 and has approximately
1,722,800 residents. Principal state industries include manufacturing, tourism, trade, services,
mining, transportation, and education. Utah manufactures guided missiles and parts, electronic
components, fabricated metals, steel, electrical and transportation equipment.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Utah?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
11
_Q
11
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1 3 sites
Congressional District 3 6 sites
Congressional District 3 2 sites
What Type of Sites are on the NPL
in the State of Utah?
# of sites
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
type of sites
Metal & Allied Products
Federal Facilities
Petroleum Refining & Related Industry
Chemical & Allied Products
Construction
Minng
Recycler
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
10-- r.
8 --
86-
4 --
2 --
GW Soil SW Sed Air
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), and volitale organic com-
pounds (VOCs). -
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics),
volitale organic compounds (VOCs),
pesticides, creosotes (organics), and
radiation.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volitale
organic compounds (VOCs), and pesti-
cides.
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics).
*Appeared at 25% or more sites.
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?t
3
Sites
with B^-
Studies
Underway
4
Sites
with
Remedy
Selected
3
Sites
1^- with
Remedy
Design
Sites
^ with m^-
Cleanup
Ongoing
1 N
Site
with
Construction
Complete .
Deleted
Sites
In addition to activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 6 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Progress
To Date
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
« A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
O
0
+*
(0
+»
CO
c/
a.
CO
a
3
C
CO
_«>
O
o
CD
I
8
<1>
O)
o
.2 *
a w
3 c
£ °
J?
00
CD >
±f f
I ft
ftft ftft
ftftftft ft
ft
If ftftftftftftftftftftft
| ft ftft ft ftft
f-^-tON^Ot-'VOCnOOON'-H
O 99 ^. 9? 9? 9? ^ 9P ^^ $1 9? ^
IjJ t^ ^-| ^H C5 *^ ^5 00 ^^ ^? ^tf" ^H
.? Qj-'CSr-'OrHOcnfOOr-i
(A
*
-a-a-a-a-a
.S J .5 -S .S
H .R
u- tu
s s a
CO CO CO
I
co co co
&#:
CO
o
g
s
B
BR]
I
B.
RCE BASE
d
ES
sSS
^ s
O § e* 2
I g ^ s
111"
||8
S^
E?
8SgS«
W vi' Q ^^
3 J S *
d w S ^
3§
118
S S
§
385
^ co >n t->
m m m co
«
i
H
H
s
i
.S
I
i
.a
§
.s
i
April 1991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 8
21
April! 991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Utah, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call EPA's Region 8 Office
in Denver, Colorado or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 8 Superfund Community Relations Office
EPA Region 8 Superfund Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
Utah Superfund Office
(303)294-1100
(303) 293-1720
(800) 424-9346
(202) 260-2080
(801) 538-6170
April 1991
22
-------
HILL AIR
FORCE BAS
UTAH
EPAID#UT0571724350
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Davis and Weber Counties
5 miles south of Ogden
Site Description
The 6,665-acre Hill Air Force Base site is used by the Air Force for the overhaul and maintenance of
aircraft. Several areas on base have been identified by the Air Force as being contaminated,
including four landfills, three chemical disposal pits, Berman Pond, Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Plant Sludge Drying Beds, Fire Training Area One, Refueling Area JP-4 Spill, Bamberger Pond,
Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Facility, and the Tooele Army Rail Shop. Industrial and municipal
wastes were dumped on base, including volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), electroplating wastes,
sludges from the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP), waste oils, and petroleum fuel
products. Migration of site-related contaminants has caused low-level contamination of nearby
groundwater and surface water, as well as the sewer systems in the Sunset and Layton communities.
Approximately 20,000 people work on Hill Air Force Base. Most of the residences in the area
surrounding the site are connected to the municipal water supply system; however, some private
wells or springs are used for drinking water and irrigation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater in the disposal and pit areas is contaminated with various VOCs and heavy
metals. On-site groundwater, located near the Berman Pond, contains lead, manganese,
and trichloroethylene (TCE). Groundwater located near the Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Plant Drying Beds and Chemical Disposal Pit #3 contains lead and VOCs.
Surface water located in springs down gradient from Chemical Disposal Pit #3 is
contaminated by VOCs and lead. The Toole Army Rail Shop and Bamberger Pond areas
are contaminated with VOCs. Contaminants are migrating to off-site groundwater.
Possible health threats include drinking or direct contact with contaminated groundwater
and surface water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in five long-term remedial phases including cleanup of: Landfills #3
and #4, Chemical Disposal Pits #1 and #2, and the Fire Training Area; Chemical Disposal Pit #3;
IWTP Sludge Drying Beds, the Sodium Hydroxide Tank Leak Area, Berman Pond, and the
Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Building 514); Landfills #1 and #2; and Tooele Army Rail
Shop and Bamberger Pond.
23
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Landfills #3 and #4, Chemical Disposal Pits #1 and #2, and the Fire Training
Area: In 1984, a clay cap was placed over Landfill #4, installation began on a slurry
wall around the upgradient areas of contamination, and a series of extraction wells were
installed. The slurry wall was completed in 1985. In 1986, clay caps were constructed over
Landfill #3 and a portion of the chemical disposal pits. A parking lot was installed over the Fire
Training Area and the rest of the chemical disposal pits. A total of about 70 acres have been
covered. Over 50 million gallons of contaminated groundwater subsequently have been extracted
and treated by the Air Force. Off-base migration of contaminants has been significantly reduced.
Continued studies into site contamination and the most effective ways to address it are underway
and are scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Chemical Disposal Pit #3: The Ah- Force began a study to determine the nature and
extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup. Interim measures will
be identified in 1991 to address liquid chemical wastes remaining in the pit. Final
cleanup remedies for the disposal pit area are expected in 1994.
IWTP Sludge Drying Beds, the Sodium Hydroxide Tank Leak Area, Berman
Pond, and the Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Building 514):
Berman Pond has been filled with construction rubble and regraded, and a clay cap was
installed over the area. The unlined IWTP Sludge Drying Beds were lined with asphalt and then
concrete. The investigation into site contamination and methods to effectively address these sites
is being conducted and interim measures for sludges and the leaking tank are expected to be
recommended in 1992. Final cleanup remedies are expected in 1994.
Landfills #1 and #2: Investigative work into site contamination and the most
effective methods to address Landfills #1 and #2 is underway. Studies of cleanup
alternatives are scheduled to be completed in 1994.
Tooele Army Rail Shop and Bamberger Pond: The investigation into site
contamination and the most effective methods to address these areas was begun by the
Air Force in 1989. This investigation is scheduled for completion in 1995.
Site Facts: Hill Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a
specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify,
investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD
facilities. In 1991, the EPA and Hill Air Force Base signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA),
whereby the Air Force will conduct investigations at the site. Ongoing site characterization work
may identify additional areas of the site that require cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions have been performed at several of the investigation areas: the installation of a cap, a
slurry wall, and extraction wells have significantly reduced the migration of contaminants from the
Hill Air Force Base site while further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
April T 991 24 HILL AIR FORCE BASE
-------
MIDVALE SLAG
UTAH
EPA ID#UTD081834277
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Midvale
Site Description
The 330-acre Midvale Slag site is a former copper and lead smelting facility. The Midvale Smelter
originally was constructed on this site in 1902 as a copper plant. Over the years, the plant was
changed to a lead facility, producing gold-lead-silver bullion. From 1918 to 1928, approximately
400,000 tons of lead were produced. The smelter is no longer there; however, large piles of slag and
other smelter wastes remain on site. The current operators of the site process the slag for use as
sandblasting and railroad bed material. Two million tons of slag containing lead, arsenic, cadmium,
and radioactive contaminants are present on site. A substantial amount of slag has been removed and
used for road bases, fill, and sandblasting. Access to the site currently is restricted by fences. A clay
berm has been constructed to prevent the erosion of slag into the bordering Jordan River. There are
approximately 1,500 people within 1/4 mile of the site. The contaminated shallow aquifer on site
has been reported to discharge into the Jordan River at some locations. Public and municipal wells
located near the site are used for domestic purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 02/11/91
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and sediments are contaminated with heavy metals including cadmium,
lead, and chromium. Radium was detected in off-site slag. On-site soils are
contaminated with heavy metals and radioactive compounds. Explosives found on the
site posed a potential threat to on-site workers. The Jordan River is potentially
contaminated from runoff from the site and groundwater discharge. Potential health
threats may include drinking contaminated groundwater and surface water; direct contact
with groundwater, surface water, or slag; or ingestion of contaminated soil.
25
Aprill 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being address in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1990, the EPA performed initial site cleanup actions to address
immediate threats at the site. Abandoned chemicals found in an assay lab were overpacked
and removed, and approximately 20 pounds of explosives were detonated. Additionally,
the site was fenced to prevent public access.
Entire Site: The EPA began a study into the nature and extent of contamination at the site
in late 1990. The investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will
recommend alternatives for final cleanup. The site investigation is scheduled for
completion in 1992.
Site Facts: The Midvale Slag site is adjacent to the Sharon Steel site, another site on the NPL.
Environmental Progress
Immediate actions to remove explosives and abandoned chemicals at the Midvale Slag site are
protecting area residents and the surrounding environment while further investigations are
underway and cleanup activities are being planned.
April! 991 26 MIDVALE SLAG
-------
MONTICELLO
TAILINGS (DO
UTAH
EPA ID# UT3890090035
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
San Juan County
City of Monticello
Other Names:
AEC Mill Site
Monticello Remedial Action Project
Site Description
The Monticello Mill Tailings site lies in the Montezuma Creek Valley, east of the Abajo Mountains.
The inactive ore milling facility, on 78 acres of land, is bordered by the City of Monticello and
Bureau of Land Management lands. Approximately 11 acres of the site were the mill area, and the
other 67 acres constituted the mill tailings impoundment area containing an estimated 2 million tons
of tailings and contaminated soil. The former ore buying stations and areas contaminated by wind
and waterborne particulate material and tailings cover another 300 acres. These areas, known as the
Peripheral Properties, contain an estimated 300,000 tons of contaminated materials. The mill was
constructed by the Vanadium Corporation of America in 1942 with funds from the Defense Plant
Corporation. Initially, vanadium was produced, but in 1943 the mill began production of a uranium/
vanadium sludge for the Manhattan Engineer District. In 1948, the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) bought the site. Uranium milling continued until 1960, when the mill was permanently
closed. It is estimated that approximately 900,000 tons of ore were processed at the site. Mill
operations were terminated in 1960 and in 1961 the AEC stabilized the tailings piles. In 1964, the
mill was dismantled. The population of the City of Monticello is estimated to be 1,900. The City of
Monticello has its own water system, supplied by water from springs located on the flanks of the
Abajo Mountains. The domestic water source for those people living outside the city limits is
groundwater drawn chiefly from wells completed in the Burro Canyon Formation. There is no
known contamination of the domestic water supplies attributable to contamination from the mill
site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and State
action.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with uranium, as well as its radioactive decay
products, thorium-230, radium-226, radon-222, and heavy metals from tailings deposited
on the site. Exposure to uranium through contact with contaminated soil, groundwater,
and airborne contaminated dust may be a potential threat to the health of individuals in
the area of the site.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the tailings
piles and former mill site, the peripheral properties, and the surface water and groundwater.
Response Action Status
Tailings Piles and Former Mill Site: In 1990, the Department of Energy (DOE)
completed an investigation of contamination in the tailings piles and the former mill site.
The selected remedy includes removing approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of
tailings, ore, and process-related material from their present location, where they are within the flood
plain of Montezuma Creek or where they are in contact with the groundwater, to a repository 1 mile
south of the present mill tailings site. Once this is accomplished, the repository will be capped to
protect the groundwater, isolate the waste from the environment, and control the escape of radon
gas. Contaminated runoff will be collected and treated through evaporation of contaminants or
reverse osmosis. When cleanup activities are completed, the mill site and the repository area will
be revegetated. The design of the repository is currently underway and expected to be completed
in 1994.
Peripheral Properties: In 1990, an investigation of the contamination at the peripheral
properties was completed. The remedy involves excavating approximately 300,000 cubic
yards of tailings and removing them to the repository, revegetating the area after the
tailings are removed, and limiting access and the potential for future use. Design of this portion of
the site remedy is underway and cleanup activities are planned for 1992.
Surface Water and Groundwater: The DOE will conduct an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of contamination in the surface water and groundwater.
Completion of this investigation is not anticipated until the cleanup of the contaminated
source materials at the tailing piles and mill site is finished.
Environmental Progress
The DOE is conducting numerous investigations and is planning activities for the Monticello Mill
Tailings site. Remedies and cleanup plans currently are being designed to address mill tailings and
piles and to limit further surface and groundwater contamination. While these investigations are
ongoing, the EPA has determined that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding
community or the environment.
April 1991
28
MONTICELLO MILL TAILINGS (DOE)
-------
MONTICELLO C
RADIOACTIVELY
CONTAMINATED
PROPERTIES
o
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980667208
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
San Juan County
Monticello
Other Names:
Monticello Remedial Action Project
Monticello Vicinity Properties
Site Description
The Monticello Radioactively Contaminated Properties consist of private and commercial
properties in Monticello, covering approximately 4 square miles. An estimated 400 residences have
been contaminated with radioactive mill wastes from ore processing operations near the town.
During World War II, the Federal government established an ore processing mill to produce
vanadium, a steel hardener, for the war effort. Vanadium is not radioactive itself, but it is found in
the same ore with uranium and radium; thus, the processing wastes contain significant radioactivity.
Soon after its construction, the mill began production of a uranium/vanadium sludge for the
Manhattan Engineer District. Uranium production continued until 1960, when the plant was closed
and dismantled. Contaminated dust from the mill tailings piles has been blown into the city.
Tailings from the mill site have been used as construction material, backfill, and as sand mix in
concrete. These uses have resulted in the radioactive contamination of numerous properties within
Monticello. Approximately 1,900 people live in the town of Monticello. The mill site is located
immediately south of the city on the flood plain of Montezuma Creek.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Soil is contaminated with uranium. People who are exposed to the radioactive materials
may suffer adverse health effects. Inhalation of radon-222 or direct contact with
radionuclides in the tailings may be harmful to human health. There is no contamination
of the domestic water supply.
29
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1984, the EPA cleaned up two of the most heavily contaminated homes.
Since 1984, the Department of Energy (DOE) has been systematically cleaning up the
remaining properties. Three families were temporarily relocated while their property was
being cleaned up. Cleanup actions have been completed at 90 properties. An additional 300 or
more properties are expected to be cleaned up by 1996. In 1990, the EPA selected a remedy to
clean up the radioactive properties by excavating the mill tailings around the residences and
disposing of the material at the Monticello mill site. A repository will be built to contain the
material. The DOE presently is completing the technical specifications for the repository, and
construction is scheduled to begin in 1994. Relocation of the contaminated materials is expected to
begin in 1995 and to be completed by 1997.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA, the DOE, and the State signed an Interagency Agreement. Under
this Agreement, the DOE will clean up the contaminated properties. Some property owners will not
allow investigations or cleanup of their property.
Environmental Progress
The DOE has finished cleaning 90 properties at the Monticello site, greatly reducing the potential
for exposure to hazardous substances. The DOE also is completing the technical design for further
cleanup activities, including the repository for the mill tailings.
April 1991 30 MONTICELLO RADIOACTIVELY
CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
-------
OGDEN DEFENSE
DEPOT
UTAH
EPAID#UT9210020922
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Weber County
3 1/2 miles northwest of Ogden
Other Names:
Defense Depot Ogden Utah (DDOU)
Site Description
The Ogden Defense Depot (ODD) site is located northwest of Ogden. The 1,319-acre site is a major
supply distribution center for the Defense Logistics Agency. Unknown quantities of hazardous
wastes, including methyl bromide and mustard gas, were stored and may have been buried on site
during the 1940s and 1950s, when it was an Army installation. The ODD consists of 6 possible
waste disposal areas. These areas include: the french drain in the herbicide/pesticide mixing area;
Burial Site #3 used to dispose of toxic chemical warfare agents in the 1940s; Burial Site #4 which
includes burning pits and a methyl bromide disposal pit; Building 244 4-C (metal plating shop);
Burial Site #1 (riot control agent disposal area); and Burial Site #5 (mosquito repellent disposal
area). The ODD is located within the city limits. The population center is located approximately 3
miles from the site. The distance from the site to the nearest residence is about 500 feet. The site is
located above the Weber Delta Aquifer, which consists of shallow and deep zones. There are no
municipal wells in use within the vicinity of the ODD. Pineview Reservoir supplies the City of
Ogden with drinking water and is located 10 miles east of the site. Streams and a creek are located
near the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater sampling results have identified the heavy metals arsenic,
cadmium, and chromium, and various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
benzene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and methylene chloride. Lead was identified in
on-site sediments. Soil is contaminated with VOCs, zinc, cadmium, and the pesticide
chlordane. Access to the site is restricted, thereby reducing the potential for contact with
contaminants. Individuals accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with the
contaminated groundwater, sediments, or soils may be at risk. Potential risks also may
exist from eating bioaccumulated contaminants in fish, waterfowl, livestock, and
commercial agricultural products.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: an immediate action and four long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the french drain at the herbicide/pesticide mixing area and the three waste
burial sites.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: During soil excavations in 1988, a team from the Escort and
Disposal Detachment at Dugway Proving Ground excavated Burial Site #3. During the soil
excavation, vials were recovered and identified as items from both the chemical agent
identification and training sets. Defused riot control grenades also were recovered and safely
disposed of.
French Drain: The EPA selected a remedy for cleaning up groundwater at the french
drain area which includes: extracting contaminated groundwater, treating the extracted
groundwater, and reinjecting the treated groundwater. In addition, contaminated soils will
be excavated and incinerated off site. Work on the engineering design is expected to be completed
by late 1992.
Burial Site #1: Investigations to determine the nature and extent of the contamination
and to identify alternative technologies for cleanup of Burial Site #1 were initiated in 1989
and are expected to be completed in 1992.
Burial Site #3: Investigations to determine the nature and extent of the contamination
and to identify methods for cleanup of Burial Site #3 were started in 1990 and are
scheduled to be completed in late 1992.
Burial Site #4: Investigations to determine the nature and extent of the contamination
and to identify alternative methods for cleanup of Burial Site #4 were begun in 1989 and
are slated for completion in late 1992.
Environmental Progress
By excavating and removing contaminated soil, vials, and the defused grenades from Burial Site #3
at the Ogden Defense Deposit site, the potential for exposure to hazardous materials has been
significantly reduced. Investigations into the extent of contamination at the other identified areas
and appropriate cleanup alternatives are being conducted.
April 1991 32 OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT
-------
PORTLAND CEMEN
(KILN DUST #2 &
UTAH
EPAID#UTD980718670
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Salt Lake City
Other Names:
Lone Star Industries
Site Description
The Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2 & #3) site consists of three disposal sites located on 71 acres
that were used for the disposal of spent kiln dust and old kiln chromate bricks. The kiln dust and
bricks are stored in piles on the surface, exposing them to transport by wind and water. The
company disposed of kiln dust and old kiln chromate bricks in the greater Salt Lake City area until
1983, including disposal since the mid-1960s at areas #2 and #3 and the west area. The dust, an
alkaline by-product of cement manufacturing collected in baghouses from the kiln stacks, contains
concentrations of lead and arsenic. The old kiln bricks contain elevated levels of heavy metals.
Commercial and industrialized areas are located around the site. Four homes are located on the
western side of the site. The Jordan River Surplus Canal and City Drain are surface water bodies
adjacent to the site. A large residential area east of the site contains two elementary schools. Up to
12,000 people live within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and the nearby surface water are contaminated with heavy metals including
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and molybdenum. Both also have high pH levels.
Inhalation of the extremely fine dust particles may pose potential health threats to area
residents and workers cleaning up the site. Potential health risks may exist for individuals
touching or drinking the contaminated groundwater. Wildlife in the area also may be
threatened by the contaminants. Nearby surface waters, the Surplus Canal and City
Drain, and the upper aquifer may be threatened by the site contamination.
33
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on the removal of contaminated kiln dust and bricks and the cleanup of the soil.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The site was fenced by the potentially responsible parties to
prevent access to contaminated materials. A dust suppressant is applied on an as-needed
basis to prevent dust from blowing off the site.
Kiln Dust: The EPA selected a remedy for cleanup of the kiln dust in mid-1990. The
selected remedy includes removing and shipping the cement kiln dust off site for disposal
at an EPA-approved landfill. Groundwater will be monitored and, if necessary, the EPA
will select a separate remedy for its cleanup. The potentially responsible party is expected to begin
the design of the remedy in 1991.
Soils and Residual Contamination: In 1991, the EPA began a study of soil
contamination and any residual contamination from the kiln dust. At the conclusion of
this study, a final remedy selection will be made.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in March 1991 by the EPA, the Utah Department of
Health, and Lone Star Industries. Under the Decree, the company will design and perform the
cleanup actions associated with the kiln dust.
Environmental Progress ^_
Actions taken to fence the site and apply a dust suppressant to the site surface help prevent possible
contact with contamination both on and off site at the Portland Cement site. These actions also
remove any immediate threat to the surrounding community or the environment while investigations
continue and cleanup actions are being planned.
April1991 34 PORTLAND CEMENT
(KILNDUST#2)
-------
ROSE PARK
SLUDGE PIT
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980635452
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Salt Lake City
Site Description
The Rose Park Sludge Pit site is approximately 2 acres in size and is located in a Salt Lake City park
that includes a baseball field, tennis courts, soccer fields, and a golf course. The area was used by
predecessors of Amoco Oil Co. for the disposal of petroleum wastes from the early 1920s until 1957.
Refinery sludges were placed into unlined storage pits. The City bought the property in 1957 and
covered the site. During park development grading operations, site contamination was discovered
when a bulldozer broke through the cover and re-exposed the sludge. The area surrounding the site
is primarily residential, with 150,000 people residing in Salt Lake City.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, municipal, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Refinery sludges are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sulfur
dioxide. The groundwater possibly contains VOCs as a result of refinery sludges being
placed in unlined pits. The area is now capped and the sludges do not pose a threat to the
public or the environment.
35
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Construction of a lined clay cap and slurry wall over and around the site
was completed in 1983. Revegetation was completed in spring 1984. The site cleanup
was completed as of 1985. However, groundwater monitoring is being continued by the
Salt Lake City and County Health Departments for a period of 30 years. At an annual monitoring
meeting held in 1989, it was concluded that the present groundwater operation and maintenance
criteria may not be adequate to determine the effectiveness of the remedy. In January 1990, Amoco
submitted a plan to monitor groundwater flow around the containment area. The first phase of the
monitoring is complete. The second phase, scheduled to begin in mid-1991, will include the
installation of a new system of groundwater quality monitoring.
Environmental Progress
The cap and slurry wall have contained the sludges and have prevented further contamination of
groundwater resources. All planned cleanup activities for the Rose Park Sludge Pit site have been
completed. The State will continue to monitor groundwater to ensure that no further contamination
is present and that the site will not pose a threat to human health or the environment.
April 1991
36
ROSE PARK SLUDGE PIT
-------
SHARON STEEL
(MIDVALE TAILI
UTAH
EPAID#UTD980951388
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Midvale
Site Description
The Sharon Steel site is a former milling and smelting operation covering 268 acres in Midvale.
Operations began in 1905, with the smelter closing in 1958 and the milling operations closing in
1971. Sulfide concentrates of lead, copper, zinc, and other metals were extracted from ore during
the milling operations. Wastes from this process resulted in an estimated accumulation of 10 million
tons of mine tailings piles on the site, which are 40 to 50 feet deep. The State first became involved
at the mill in 1982, when it learned that nearby residents were gathering the windblown tailings for
use in gardens and children's sandboxes. The State tested the "sand" from the gardens and
sandboxes and found high levels of lead. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found lead in
groundwater underneath the site. Approximately 1,400 people live within 1/4 mile of the site;
roughly 8,000 people live within 1 mile. The Jordan River supplies water to 160 acres of farm land
through 10 irrigation intakes within 3 miles of the site. Two smaller drainage ditches, the North
Jordan Canal and Galena Canal, are nearby. A 22-acre wetland and several small ponds also are on
the mill site. The deep aquifer underlying the site is a source of drinking water for the metropolitan
Salt Lake City area. Municipal wells that draw from this aquifer are within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The shallow groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, iron,
manganese, and zinc from the mill site. Sediments from the Jordan River, which is
classified by the State for cold-water game fishing and recreation other than swimming,
are contaminated with heavy metals. The wetlands on the site contain heavy metals and
zinc tailings. Soil is contaminated with heavy metals including lead, arsenic, cadmium,
and zinc. The greatest potential health threat to people is exposure to lead and arsenic
through direct contact with or inhalation of contaminated soils, including dust; children
playing in nearby neighborhood soils or sandboxes are especially at risk.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater and soils at the mill site and the vicinity property.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1989, the party potentially responsible for the site
contamination installed a fence around the site.
Mill Site and Grounds: The EPA has completed studies to determine the nature and
extent of groundwater and soil contamination on the mill site. The EPA, with the
assistance of the Bureau of Mines, currently is evaluating the selected treatment methods
prior to final remedy selection in late 1992.
Vicinity Property: The remedy selected by the EPA in late 1990 to address soil
contamination in the vicinity of the site includes excavating contaminated soil and
temporarily storing the soil on site until final disposal. The excavated soil will be
replaced with clean fill and revegetated. The State is managing the design of the remedy, which is
expected to be completed in fall 1991.
Environmental Progress
By constructing a fence to restrict access to the mill site and grounds, the potentially responsible
parties and the EPA have reduced the possibility of direct exposure to the contaminants on the
Sharon Steel site. Investigations leading to permanent solutions for cleaning up the soil and
groundwater at the site and the surrounding affected areas have been completed, and design of
cleanup actions is underway.
April 1991 38 SHARON STEEL (MIDVALE TAILINGS)
-------
TOOELE ARM
DEPOT
(NORTH AREA
UTAH
EPA ID# UT3213820894
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Tooele County
Tooele Valley, 2 miles south of Tooele
Site Description
The 24,732-acre Tooele Army Depot site, established in 1942, is one of the major ammunition
storage and equipment maintenance installations in the United States. Disposal practices at the site
have included discharging wastes to unlined evaporation or percolation ponds, neutralization and
thermal destruction of chemical agents and munitions, detonation and burning, and burial of these
materials at the demilitarization range. The City of Tooele has a population of 15,000. The deep
regional aquifer, used as a drinking water source by area communities, is contaminated beneath the
area of the Depot and several hundred yards beyond the property boundary.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE). On-site contamination of the Industrial
Waste Lagoon and wastewater ditches includes some low-level organic contamination
and relatively high levels of the heavy metals cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium.
A release of TCE and TNT-related compounds also was identified on the site. The
potential health threat to people includes drinking contaminated groundwater and direct
contact with the groundwater and sediments. Because the site is a secured military
installation, public access is restricted.
39
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on groundwater cleanup and
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The Army has completed a Groundwater Quality Assessment and
Corrective Action Plan for groundwater cleanup at the Industrial Waste Lagoon. Pilot
testing of potential cleanup technologies is underway. An investigation of the
groundwater is expected to begin in late 1991.
Entire Site: The Army has begun investigations to identify releases of hazardous
chemicals and cleanup alternatives at numerous other areas of contamination on the site.
Investigations, scheduled to begin in late 1991, will determine the nature and extent of the
contamination and will identify alternatives for final cleanup at these waste disposal and release
areas.
Site Facts: Toole Army Depot is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially
funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify, investigate,
and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities. The Army
has agreed to clean up the Industrial Waste Lagoon under a Consent Decree.
Environmental Progress
The Army has evaluated the Tooele Army Depot (North Area) site and has determined that no initial
actions are necessary while investigations into groundwater contamination and other hazardous
waste areas are underway.
April 1991 40 TOOELE ARMY
DEPOT (NORTH AREA)
-------
UTAH POWER &
LIGHT/AMERICAN
BARREL
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980667240
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Salt Lake City
Site Description
The 2 1/2-acre Utah Power & Light/American Barrel site was used as a barrel storage, recycling, and
reconditioning facility. Empty barrels at one time contained various volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), degreasers, and solvents. Prior to the barrel operation, the site was used by Utah Power and
Light as a creosote pole treating facility and as a coal processing plant in the late 1800s.
Approximately 39,700 people live within 2 miles of the site. Four schools are located within 1 mile.
The nearest residence is 225 feet away. One municipal well and one private well are located within
1 mile of the site. A drainage ditch runs along the eastern fence of the site. Water conveyed by the
ditch is believed to percolate into the ground within several yards of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Soil contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from wood treating operations,
phthalates, VOCs, and heavy metals including chromium, copper, lead, and zinc.
Groundwater contains VOCs including benzene, styrene, toluene, and xylene. Potential
health risks may exist for individuals who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact
with contaminated soil and groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
41
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In 1988, under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible
for the site contamination removed 50,000 barrels containing VOCs, solvents, and
herbicide residues to a federally approved facility.
Soil and Groundwater: The potentially responsible parties initiated an investigation in
1990 to determine the type and extent of groundwater and soil contamination and to
identify possible cleanup alternatives. The investigation is expected to be completed in
1992. Once this investigation phase is completed, the EPA will review the study findings and will
select the final cleanup remedies for contaminated soils and groundwater resources.
Site Facts: The EPA and the potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Order on
Consent in August 1990, under which the parties agreed to conduct the soil and groundwater
investigation.
Environmental Progress
The removal of waste barrels containing VOCs, solvents, and herbicide residues has greatly reduced
the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Utah Power & Light/American Barrel site
while site investigations continue and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 42 UTAH POWER & LIGHT/AMERICAN BARREL
-------
WASATCH CHEMIC
COMPANY (LO
UTAH
EPA ID#UTD000716399
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Salt Lake City
Other Names:
Huntsman-Christensen Corporation
>at Western Chemical Company-Wasatch
Industrial Park
Site Description
The 15-acre Wasatch Chemical Company (Lot 6) site was used for the formulation of various
pesticides, herbicides, and industrial chemical products in the early 1960s. Approximately 2,300
cubic yards of waste were disposed of in a concrete pond and drums on the site. During an
inspection in 1985, the State found 48 drums holding ignitable and reactive liquids and 13
pressurized gas cylinders in deteriorated condition. Additional wastes from the operation were
discharged into a street ditch, which eventually drains into the Great Salt Lake. Approximately
85,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The closest residence is 1/4 mile away.
Although previously accessible to trespassers, the site is now secured. There are private wells within
a 1/4-mile radius of the site that are used for drinking, bathing, cooking, and other household
purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 02/11/91
Threats and Contaminants
I\
Groundwater underlying the site contains VOCs and herbicides. Soils and sludges
contain VOCs, pesticides, herbicides, anddioxin. Low levels of pesticides were detected
in surface water, however, these may have resulted from an off-site source. Potential
health risks may exist for individuals who accidentally ingest or have direct contact with
contaminated surface water, groundwater, sludges, or soils.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA removed abandoned gas cylinders from the site in
1986 and detonated them at a State-owned site. The parties potentially responsible for
the contamination constructed a dioxin storage facility. Abandoned drums were
repackaged and stored in the facility along with certain surface soils removed from Lot 6.
Actions to temporarily cap dioxin-contaminated soils currently are underway.
Entire Site: In early 1991, the potentially responsible parties completed an
investigation, under State monitoring, to determine the type and extent of soil, surface
water, and groundwater contamination. The selected remedy includes the
consolidation of contaminated soils, sludges, and other wastes in an evaporation pond formerly
used at the site and in-place vitrification of these materials. Contaminated groundwater will be
removed through extraction wells and trenches, treated by air stripping and carbon absorption,
and discharged to a sewer system. Additionally enforcing deed restrictions, not issuing new well
permits, and restricting water rights will prevent the use of contaminated groundwater. Design
of the selected remedy will begin in mid-1991.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State of Utah and the EPA negotiated a Consent Order for removal of
the drums. A Consent Decree was signed in 1988 with one of the potentially responsible parties
agreeing to complete a site investigation.
Environmental Progress
The removal of gas cylinders and safe storage of abandoned drums have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the Wasatch Chemical Company site while the
design of cleanup activities is being planned.
April 1991 W WASATCH CHEMICAL COMPANY (LOT 6)
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
45
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
47
-------
GLOSSARY
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland],
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Bisulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
48
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
49
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells
downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
50
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (particulate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
51
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
52
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
53
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
54
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant. Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Poly vinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a
Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
55
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
56
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it. The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
57
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
58
-------
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
59
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
IMPL Sites
in Utah
61
-------
rmation pertaining to the
activity and cleanup prog
from public meetings, fact
ation centers, and any oth
t the public can obtain additional ini
sted below. AH public access infc
asitories depends on the extent of
icnts for public meetings, minutes
s, locations of other public inform
a s. s 8
1 -2 « i 1
S .i f § S
Repositories are established for all NPL sil
location, however, the primary site reposi
and nature of the documentation found ir
following: community relations plans, an
to the selection of cleanup remedies, pres
Site Repository
Site Name
|
oo
Wasatch Drive, Layton, UT
Davis County Library, 155 North
1 HILL AIR FORCE BASE
r-
i Wood Street, Midvale, UT
Ruth V. Tyler Public Library, 313
1 MID VALE SLAG
and Remediation, Cannon Health Building, 2nd
1
Bureau of Environmental R<
t Lake City, UT 84116
Utah State Department of Health,
Floor, 288 North 1460, West, Sail
MONTICELLO MILL TAILINGS (DOE)
in
oo
H
3
1
3 1 North Main Street, Monti
u
1
o
U
* «
§
GO
-------
l2th Fioci
------- |